Reducing heat and introducing a modicum of light!

For those who are truly interested in issues and how Obama and McCain might differ on a particular subject, taxation is a good place to start.

In the case of Obama, he sees government's power to tax as a way to redistribute wealth. Take (tax) from the rich, give to the poor. He proposes to do so through tax credits which would channel peoples behaviour and increase their dependence upon government programs. It is a disguised return to welfare.

Obama's proposed tax credits would go mostly to those who pay little or no taxes. Though he calls this tax cutting it is far from it. It is simply a government handout to support a lot of his new government spending initiatives. Obama intends to pay for this by increasing the top income tax rate to 39.65% from 26.6%, increase the capital gain tax to 20% and increase the Social Security Pay Roll Tax for families making over $250,000. Finally he would lock in a permanent death tax on estates at 45%.

Obama does not understand, apparently, wealth achievement is not an evil pursuit when accomplished legally. Unlike Britain, the beauty of our society is that it still permits upward mobility. Furthermore, Obama seems to believe Americans are incapable of addition now that computers have supplanted reasoned calculation.

This is the man who said "words count" but failed to follow up with "credentials count" as well. He is the only presidential candidate in modern times whose resume is as thin as it is and were he not the darling of the media and press and far left of his party mainly because of his "colorful speech making " I doubt he would be their candidate.

McCain, on the other hand, would use the government's taxing authority to enhance productivity and capital investments and would offer tax credits to companies who engage in pursuing energy independence and other productive efforts that would enhance national security. It is McCain's desire desire to offset these increased costs through cutting government programs and wasteful spending.

McCain has also wisely suggested a voluntary flat tax option for tax payers. What's wrong with choice that's a real change.

With a Democrat controlled Congress led by Pelosi and Reid that may be impossible to achieve but maybe Palin can bring public pressure should she become V.P. Nancy Pelosi made a "paygo" promise in 2006 when she became Speaker. Earmarks alone have increased to $17 billion since that pledge.


A good place for McCain to start might be the elimination of several government agencies and bureaucracies like the Department of Education, The Department of Indian Affairs and much of the Commerce Department etc. Any fool knows government is too big, too unwieldy and thus incapable of being efficient and providing the best return for the money expended.

We can recapture lost jobs to China if Unions are willing to accept both a lower standard of living and wages for their workers. Retraining initiatives and innovative research and creativity seem a far better alternative.

We can better educate children if Unions would embrace competition and endorse school choice.

We can lessen energy dependence if Pelosi would permit Democrats to defect from the Party Line. It has finally begun to sink in that Pelosi has placed her Party on the wrong side of this critical issue because House Democrats are now rallying around her own proposal to allow more offshore drilling etc. We will not produce more energy by taxing oil companies and imposing other disincentives.

Yes, we can now even begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq because our mission has begun to produce positive results the consequence of a change in our tactics and strategy. Had Bush allowed Democrats their way we would have suffered another ignominious defeat with all its negative consequences. Remember "The War is Lost Reid" and "Gen. Betrayus?" Even Obama said we were bombing Iraq villages.


We also regained some lost respect and co-operation from our so-called European partners because Germany and France changed leadership. Germany's former Chancellor Schmidt is now a paid servant of the Russians.

We can achieve better health care at a lower cost if we allow competition to enter the arena and permit private enterprise to replace government bureaucratic management of our health care system. Currently many state laws mandate health insurance companies offer policies broader than is necessary and therefore more costly.

We could even become a more cohesive society if we embraced the principles of Martin Luther King and rejected the populist pap of Obamaism - another name for stealth liberalism which was tried and proved to be a thoroughly illusive and ill conceived dream in The Great Society days.

Finally, we can accomplish truly needed "change" if we do not lie to ourselves by denying the real basis that underlie so many of our systemic problems. That also means rejecting "political correctness" as our guiding light and returning to common sense approaches balanced with rational civil sensitivity.

While Democrats love attacking GW's economic accomplishments many facts dispute their claims. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most expanded economies since 2000. The IMF reports U.S, GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2%. As GW leaves office he will pass to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from Clinton and that was after a mild recession. The U.S.'s 8 year expansion exceeded that of France, Japan, Italy and Germany.

The World Bank's Development Indicators show U.S. GDP per capita reached $41,813 in purchasing power parity dollars in 2005. - a third higher than in the U.K, Germany and Japan. Even including illegal immigrants, estimates of U.S. per capita consumption was second to Luxembourg out of 146 countries covered.

The U.S., Census Bureau reported 3.6 million people were covered by health insurance in 2007 over 2006 as was 84.7% of our entire population. Life expectancy increased to 78 years in 2006.

If we look at wealth distribution we find 20% of the richest U.S.households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to that in the U.K, Israel and that in 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S. This even after accounting for a surge in U.S immigration which logically restrained growth of average income levels in the bottom quartiles. Yet, these immigrants were able to remit $42 billion to families abroad in 2006.

None of the above ignores the financial problems we face, rising unemployment and the meltdown in home equity and bank capital. We are either in a recession or probably heading into one but many of the causes are the consequence of policies instituted by an independent Federal Reserve Chairman, an irresponsible Congress that refused to act as wise trustees (the current deficit is 3% of GDP in line with the average over the last 30 years but in this decade alone spending has increased $1.2 trillion. In the four years after GW's tax cuts in 2003, revenue exploded some $785 billion. Meanwhile, even with Iraq, defense spending remains at 4.5% of GDP. ) and a president who forgot he had veto authority. (See 1 below.)

Finally, investments in machinery and building during the Bush years through 2005, totaled $8,018 per capita and exceeded that in Germany for instance.

GW's economic policies, therefore, have not been the disaster they have been characterized to be but neither have they been as good as they might have been had we not borne the burden and cost of Iraq. However, Iraq is not the problem - amoebic unrestrained spending is.

GW's economic policies bought the above growth at the expense of a burgeoning national debt and a declining dollar. Overall a mixed record but when balanced against some of the historically unusual events - 9/11, Katrina and the cost of protecting our nation from terrorism (airport security etc.) - the picture is less bleak.

My intent is not to praise GW's economic policies but rather to put them in a factual context and, by so doing, hopefully eliminate some of the heat while introducing a modicum of light.

Obama has been specific beyond just his tax policies which I find bizarre. He has been specific about his thoughts on health-care and energy but he has also shifted on matters pertaining to Iraq and Iran and many of his past personal associations without being specific. I believe, as uncommitted voters begin to get serious about looking at Obama and pressures mount as the campaign tightens his star will get less bright.

Feminists vs Palin. (See 2 below.)

The oppressive yoke of Islamic dictum has finally begun to create a backlash in Saudi Arabia, of all places. (See 3 below.)

More comments regarding Obama's decline in the polls. The Roman Columns come a tumblin down? (See 4 and 4a below.)

Dick


1) Increase in Federal outlays by category, 2001 - 2008:

Energy-16%

Community Development - 91%

Highway and Mass Transit - 22%

Education - 57%

Health research - 55%

Veteran Benefits - 58%

Medicare - 51%

National Defense - 64%

Social Security - 17%

2) Why Feminists Fear Strong Women
By James Lewis

"I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name ... yet has such a curious appeal for the right."

That delicious tidbit comes from a Canadian feminist named Heather Mallick, who writes for the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Mallick is a career "journalist" for the CBC and other major Canadian media. She has decided to blame Governor Sarah Palin on "the white trash vote" -- because it's obvious that trash attracts trash.

This just another little tribute from sneering, caterwauling, traditional-woman-hating feminists all over the Western world. (With the wonderful exception of Camille Paglia.)

Aye, 'tis a grand sight to behold.

Governor Sarah Palin is Everywoman -- she is your mother, your sister or your wife; even your grandmothers and great-grandmothers, going back generations. She is a normal strong, healthy woman. Just as in Lake Woebegon, in reality all normal women are strong.

For decades we've been told that half the human population -- the female half -- are somehow weak, oppressed victims, who cannot handle the normal challenges of life. Those are not the women you or I know. Normal women are incredibly strong; that's how evolution, or if you prefer God, made them; they are hardly pushovers or pitiable weaklings. Weaklings perish over the generations. The strong survive.

All too often modern women have been suckered and bamboozled by a lifetime of Leftist agitprop, which has turned their strengths into weaknesses. But it's 100% hogwash.

Hillary Clinton has based her whole political career on the Myth of the Victimized Woman. Feminists who run our schools and colleges are always trying to push that story to naive students, just like the young Hillary of forty years ago, who was indoctrinated at Wellesley College. Even perfectly normal women have come to believe it.

But ask yourself: How many weakling women have you ever known? I've known very few, and I suspect those few learned to behave that way for sympathy. Just put them on a jungle island and soon they'd be swinging through the trees like Jane of the Jungle.

"Weak" women are a figment of the Left, just like "weak" black people or "weak" poor people. Those folks never used to be weaklings, until the media made them think they were. With the unanimous help of mainstream radio and TV you can talk yourself into feeling you're a victim of circumstances, just as under better influences you can talk yourself into feeling strong.

But the media don't celebrate winners in life. (Wonder why?)

Comes along Sarah Palin, a strong, joyous, normal woman, who doesn't mind it if the world knows who she is, and shatters the weakling stereotype just by being herself. What a blast! And the voters, who know from personal experience exactly how strong women really are, are just recognizing their mothers and sisters and aunts in Governor Palin.

That's not "white trash." It's not "lipstick on a pig," as Obama wittily told his adoring audience a few days ago. It's normal, healthy behavior --- in fact, it's pretty much like Michelle Obama, who is also a strong woman (but bitterly angry, for some unfathomable reason).

So why do Leftist feminists fear Sarah Palin? Because their personal ego-trips and their political power depend upon The Big Lie. Like all Leftists, feminists desperately need to feel superior to the rest of us. That makes them feel good about themselves. For some Lesbian feminists I've known there is another, even more personal feeling: An intense sense of sexual competition with men. If you believe that all men are evil abusers, Lesbians are the logical refuge for women. The edge of manic rage that marks a lot of feminism seems to owe quite a lot to sexual jealousy, one of the most destructive of human emotions.

So there's a lot riding on the Myth of Female Weakness, from ego, to sexual passions, to deliberately cultivated group rage, to money and career ambitions. Without the Myth a rage-driven feminist like Heather Mallick would not have a high-paid career with the government-own broadcaster in socialist Canada. All the feminist professors who were hired to create "gender balance" in our schools and colleges, all the Ms. Magazine writers, all the media ladies, the affirmative action bureaucrats and victimology peddlers would lose the only career they know. A huge amount of money, prestige, snobbery, influence, ego, rage and sexual passion rides on the feminist myth.

Sarah Palin shatters their reasons for being.

Once a majority of normal women decide they are not victims at all, Leftist feminism is a goner. Which would be a good thing, overall, because the important thing is not some "ism" -- particularly not a destructive one -- but human beings, regardless of gender, race and all the other incidentals. Humanity is greater than feminism. It's greater than any race, creed, color, and any of those other cut and paste categories beloved of the Left.

One of my favorite books is Mario Puzo's The Fortunate Pilgrim (1965). (Yes, that Mario Puzo.) It's the story of his Neapolitan mother, and many another woman of her generation. The book's heroine is named Lucia Santa. Mamma Santa's life is incredibly touching because she is not 'fortunate' at all -- not to our way of thinking. But she is a stout pilgrim through life, in so many senses of that word. Lucia Santa was not as well-to-do as we are; she was not well-educated; she was an Italian immigrant along with her husband, who became psychotic and lived rest of his life in an asylum. Her immigrant experience is like that of many first-generation Americans, including today's Hispanics and Asians.

As Wikipedia notes,

"(The Fortunate Pilgrim) deals with the Angeluzzi-Corbos family, a family of immigrants living an adopted life in New York City. The head of the family is Lucia Santa, a wife, widow and mother of two families. It is her formidable will that steers them through the Great Depression and the early years of World War II. But she cannot prevent the conflict between Italian and American values, or the violence and bloodshed which must surely follow."
...

"The Fortunate Pilgrim is the real birthplace of The Godfather. As Puzo says, the book's hero, Lucia Santa, is based on his own mother:

"Whenever the Godfather opened his mouth, in my own mind I heard the voice of my mother. I heard her wisdom, her ruthlessness, and her unconquerable love for her family and for life itself. ... The Don's courage and loyalty came from her; his humanity came from her...and so, I know now, without Lucia Santa, I could not have written The Godfather."


Lucia Santa lived a life of immense suffering and joy, loss and triumph. Her pilgrimage was to carry on in the new land with her children, to deal with their troubles and triumphs, and to be a tower of strength to her family and neighbors. Her son Mario became a great success as a novelist. But we become who we are from our parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters; yes, and our friends and teachers; sometimes we do it consciously, and more often not.

That's the traditional woman -- who we are told, on great feminist authority -- was always a "weakling" before feminist ideologues came along to rescue her. That is your grandmother and mine, down the generations, just as it is your grandfather and mine.

Nobody told them they were weaklings. So they never knew it.

"We stand on the shoulders of giants," as a more grateful age used to say.

Maybe it's time to bring back that old truth.

3) Saudi Liberals: Following 9/11... The Voice of Islamism Disintegrated into Fragments... And the Voice of Liberalism is Gaining the Upper Hand

With the approach of the seventh anniversary of 9/11, Saudi liberal journalists have noted the changes in their country that resulted from these events, and the changes that came in its aftermath - particularly, that Saudi society is currently undergoing a shift away from fundamentalism and towards liberalism.

Following are excerpts from two articles reflecting this viewpoint:

"The Muslims Have Seen With Their Own Eyes That Bloodshed Leads To Nothing But Destruction, Devastation, Isolation, And Persecution"

In an article posted on the liberal website Elaph, [1] Saudi liberal Salah Al-Rashed argued that the 9/11 attacks precipitated a genuine social revolution in Saudi Arabia. He wrote: "Actions carried out by bin Laden - explosions and the murder of civilians, whether in the West or among his compatriots - have brought the Muslims to their senses and awoken them from their slumbers...

"The Muslims have seen with their own eyes that bloodshed leads to nothing but destruction, devastation, isolation, and persecution. [They have also been subject to] suspicious, distrustful, and searching glances cast at anyone who is Muslim anywhere in the world. [The Muslims] have now realized that the solution lies in pursuing the culture of peace and eschewing bloody wars and conflicts.

"Both the cognitive revolution that is underway in the region and the pursuit of peace, liberalism, and dialogue that we currently are observing can be attributed to the actions of [Osama] bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Culturally, we needed [some] bitter experience, [e.g.] in the form of bin Laden's terrorist [activities], in order to shake off the past, the culture of graves, and the practice of resuscitating the past, in order to start living in the present and [addressing] its needs."

"The Rift Created By Bin Laden Between the Islamists and the Saudi Government Has Given the Liberal Current the Opportunity to Establish Itself... Before Bin Laden, the Voice of Fundamentalism Dominated"

"Bin Laden [was proof] to the people who live in the past, with its symbols, ideas and victories, that the solution lies in severing ties with the culture of death and forming new ties with life - ties conducive to progress based on economic development and modern achievements. Anyone who observed, say, the cultural effervescence in Saudi Arabia in the wake of the September 11 attacks and subsequent terrorist acts both inside and outside Saudi Arabia can clearly see that the voice of Islamism in the country has begun to wane and that the voice of liberalism is gaining the upper hand. [Liberal] leaders have moved from defense to attack, from subservience and chicanery to open and courageous tactics of directly confronting the voice of Islamic extremism.

"The war on terror and the culture of terrorism has afforded the Saudi liberal camp an opportunity to participate in it and to join the government, which once treated it like its bitterest enemy. The alliance between the liberals and the establishment Saudis is stronger now than in the past. The rift created by bin Laden between the Islamists and the Saudi government has given the liberal current the opportunity to establish itself, and to impress [upon the public] that its voice is a reality that can no longer be ignored in Saudi Arabia. Before bin Laden, the voice of fundamentalism dominated. Not just politicians but all circles within society sought to ally themselves to and propitiate it.

"Today, after bin Laden, the voice of Islamism has disintegrated into fragments, which are pulling in different and [often] opposite directions. The brilliance of many of [its] stars has diminished, and some of them have, in a blatantly opportunistic [move], moved closer to the liberal camp,. The Islamists have shifted from attack mode to defense mode. This change has significantly weakened them. The sun of their glory has begun to set - except for those who grabbed onto the [lifebelt] of liberalism. The weakness of the Islamist current in Saudi Arabia will also bear on the might of its counterparts outside this country..."

45 Minutes that Changed the World - And Saudi Arabia

In an article in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, Saudi liberal 'Ali Sa'd Al-Mussa, a journalist and lecturer at King Khaled University in Abha, argued that 9/11 marked the watershed between the era of Islamist-led Saudi public discourse and the modern era, characterized by active and varied public discourse. [2] He wrote:

"The 45 minutes between 8:45 AM and 9:30 AM on September 11, 2001 were unlike any other 45 minutes in the modern history of humankind. These minutes made it impossible for the world to revert to its former state...

"...As in all societies, here in Saudi Arabia, the September 11 [attacks] engendered a new and tumultuous discourse on all issues heretofore considered taboo - as happens in all societies that relegate to the underground such issues as the media, freedom of expression, human rights, the status of women, corruption in the public sphere, educational curricula and methodology, and the rights of minorities and sects...

"In my society, the September 11 [attacks] stirred up a storm of discussion, aimed initially at making various groups aware [of the fact] that society is a pluralistic [entity, with a variety] of opinions and schools of philosophical and religious thought, and that insistence on painting everything the same color and imposing a single ideology is against human nature... For the first time, both genders were [represented] in equal numbers in the country's forums - [a change] for our society, which was predominantly patriarchic.

"The September 11 attacks left a mark on the cultural life of the nation. [Indeed,] I would not be exaggerating in saying that anyone reading our media after that global event would not [even] suspect that it was the same media it was before. Today, we are breathing fresh cultural air, after carrying oxygen tanks on our backs...

"The September 11 attacks opened up the issue of education and curricula [to public discussion], following an extensive national debate...

"Most of the discussion has so far amounted to nothing more than words. Nevertheless, we have discovered that a very high price must be paid for a lack of openness on these issues. We have discovered that the greatest obstacle [to progress] is resisting change and development.

"After the September 11 [attacks], my society realized that the most important thing is that everything be subject to discussion and debate."

[1] www.elaph.com, August 12, 2008.

[2] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), August 17, 2008.

4) Obama's Altitude Sickness
By Charles Krauthammer

The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

4a) The Press: Mad As Hell, and Not Going to Take It Any More
By John Hineraker

Howard Kurtz's column in the Washington Post is surprisingly blunt and surprisingly revealing. The mainstream media, Kurtz says, are mad. Their anger, though, is oddly unidirectional:

The media are getting mad.

Whether it's the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches.

Maybe it's a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there's anything new about that).

There certainly isn't. Barack Obama has been manipulating the press for years. His manipulation didn't make the media mad, though, because reporters were willing accomplices who have been trying to get Obama elected. It's the thought that John McCain could be manipulating them that has the media seeing red:

News outlets are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign, whether it's the ad accusing Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergartners (the Illinois legislation clearly describes "age-appropriate" programs) or Palin's repeated boast that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere (after she had supported it, and after Congress had effectively killed the specific earmark).

But the two examples Kurtz cites are ads that are indisputably true. Obama did support sex education down to kindergarten. Kurtz thinks that's OK, because the sex education for five-year-olds would be "age appropriate." He's entitled to that opinion, but my opinion, and that of most voters, is that any sex education for kindergartners is a terrible idea. In any event, whether you think teaching five-year-olds about sex is a good idea or a bad idea, the ad is true.

Likewise with the ad that says Governor Palin killed the Bridge to Nowhere: it's a simple fact that no one, including the Democratic Party in Alaska, thought to deny until Palin was selected to run for Vice-President. We wrote about it here. As the Anchorage Daily News reported on March 12, 2008:

Palin ruffled feathers when she announced - without giving the delegation advance notice - that the state was killing the Ketchikan bridge to Gravina Island, site of the airport and a few dozen residents.

If Kurtz or other members of the media want to criticize some other aspect of Palin's record they are welcome to do so, but the suggestion that she didn't kill the famous bridge is ridiculous.

That's not to say that there is no false advertising in the air this campaign season. We wrote here that Barack Obama's oft-repeated claim, in a television ad and elsewhere, that he "reach[ed] out to Senator Lugar...to help lock down loose nuclear weapons" is flatly untrue. It was Sam Nunn who "reached out to Senator Lugar" in 1991. Obama's minor amendment to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act in 2006 had nothing to do with "locking down loose nuclear weapons;" on the contrary, it specifically excluded them. Obama's amendment has turned out to be a bad idea, too. But these and other falsehoods by Obama aren't what the press is "getting mad" about, and reporters have no intention of reporting on them.

While noting that the media in general are "getting mad," Kurtz himself is mad about the "lipstick on a pig" flap:

The lipstick imbroglio is evidence that the Drudge/Fox/New York Post axis can drive just about any story into mainstream land. Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig?

I'm not sure what Obama had in mind, but I find it odd that in pages of outrage devoted to the supposed excesses of the McCain campaign, Kurtz finds no room to mention the fact that prominent Democrats (not anonymous emailers, who are much worse) have said that Governor Palin is Pontius Pilate and that her primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.

The truth is that Sarah Palin has been the object of the most vicious and concerted smear campaign in modern American history. But that fact doesn't cause the media (or Howard Kurtz) to get mad.

It's not too hard to diagnose why, as Kurtz correctly says, "the media are getting mad." They're getting mad because their candidate is losing. They've spent years building him up and covering for his mistakes and shortcomings, and he is such a stiff that he can't coast across the finish line. I'd be mad too, I guess, but I think I'd have the decency not to take it out on Sarah Palin.

PAUL adds: I'm not getting mad, but I find the nature of this campaign increasingly dismaying. Obama has been lying about McCain all along, from the nonsense about fighting in Iraq for 100 years to the claim (based on a joke) that McCain thinks the middle class extends to people making up to $5,000,000 a year.

Meanwhile, I think Kurtz is correct about the "lipstick" remark. The answer to his question, "does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig" may be "yes," but in my opinion it should be "no." And it's off-putting to hear Republican women like former Gov. Swift trying to parlay Obama's phrase (which, unhappily, has become common political jargon recently) into an identity politics "gotcha." This is the kind of thing I expect from Democrats, not Republicans.

To be sure, Obama lacks credibility when he complains about the "gotcha," having been the beneficiary of, and perhaps a party to, a similarly invalid identity politics play against Bill Clinton. Many in the media also lack credibility since, as John points out, their sense of outrage runs in only one direction.

UPDATE: At the Corner, Mark Steyn weighs in:

Howie feels the press is being "manipulated" by the McCain campaign.

Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved "manipulating" the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin's amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.

But, if you were really savvy, you'd "manipulate" the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You'd not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.